Wearing It Well

By Phil Hecken, on June 6th, 2010

By Phil Hecken with Rick Pearson

For the past couple of weeks, Ricko and I have been trading E-mails with regard to a topic which we rarely broach on Uni Watch, yet which is entirely germane to the entire raison d’Ãªtre of this board — which is the aesthetics of athletics. To wit, we discuss uniforms all the time, and we often debate which uniforms look good, bad, awful, and what have you. But we rarely discuss those athletes who, for whatever reason, can make a uniform — any uniform — look good.

There are probably dozens of examples of athletes who just look perfect in a uniform. Whether through having a body that supports the uniform, or just the way they take care of that uniform, or because the tailoring (if applicable) was perfect — the attention to detail is just right; not overly fussy but nothing is left unchecked. Whatever it may be, who “wears it well”?

Rick and I tossed a few names about, and while I could undoubtedly come up with more, I chose four baseball players from four different eras. Ricko took a slightly different approach. Just to show you my choices aren’t “predetermined” to be “old school” guys who only wear striped stirrups, one of my choices doesn’t even wear ‘rups at all — but he does know how to wear a uniform well. Let’s take a look at the four gentlemen who, in my opinion, know how to wear a uniform and who wear it well. After that, Ricko has a bunch of his own (and many of those photos come directly from the “Ricko Files”, always a special treat):

~~~

Stan Musial: Stan “the Man” Musial played his entire career for the St. Louis Cardinals, but did sport several different uniform styles throughout that time. But whether it was the post war uniform with thick red piping, or the almost contemporary later version of the birds on bat, Musial’s uniform was always perfectly fitting, his undershirt always perfectly complementary, his stirrups perfect. Everything just looked good. You saw Musial in uniform and you just knew “THAT’S a ballplayer.” Even years later, when the Cards went to the poly pullover and sansabelts, Musial still wore it well.

Rickey Henderson: For the third “examplar” of a guy who knew how to wear a uniform, there was probably no finer physical specimen than Rickey. And he played his uniform tailoring to those strengths. Whether it was during the ribbon stirrup era, he simply looked like he could steal a base at any given time. Even when the uniform styles sent many guys to the pajama bottom length, Rickey even made that style look good, with his ability to just look good in a uniform. When he wore his uniform in a style I personally detest, even I will admit, he wore it well. Not many people can make that style look good. Rickey did.

That’s about all I have to say on my end. I could have picked some football players or other sports, but it being baseball season, I spanned the decades to bring you four guys who just know how to wear a uniform and wear it well.

I’ll now turn the rest of the article over to Ricko, and meet back up with him at the conclusion.

~~~

I decided not to think too much when Phil asked about this, just go with the first guys who came immediately to mind…because I’d noticed them for “wearing it well” over the years. And I dug the images out of The Ricko Files, in hopes it would be stuff not commonly seen.

Reggie Jackson:

Say what you will about Jackson, he knows the history of the game and has a sense of history, too. Maybe that’s why he was so productive on the big stage. The mammoth home run in the Detroit All-Star Game, the playoff and World Series performances than earned him his “Mr. October” moniker…things like that made it obvious Reggie knew when folks were looking.

That seemed to manifest itself in the way he wore his uni, too. Never did anything “over the top,” simply kept everything “just so.” Pants height varied little, but stirrup height did change a bit over time.

With Yankees it was White or Navy bands at home, Gray or Navy on the road. When taped cleats got to be “in” for awhile, he gave that a try, although there was unfortunate unbuttoned jersey thing he opted for in New York from time to time.

Moving to the Angels, the bands were usually Red and occasionally Blue, although not the best of matches (may I say here that, as sansabelt unis go, that Angels set was damn fine…too bad they’ve wandered so far from that basic look and color distribution).

Always thought he looked like was born to wear a football uniform. And, while he messed around white high socks and spatting (not negatives in my book, but they’ll get him clobbered by many here…and they WERE part of the era when he played), he always looked as though he had a precise idea of how he thought a football uniform should be worn…and looked that way wherever he played. At Oregon, while still Bobby Moore, with the Cardinals, the Bills, and the Vikings. Even in training camp in shorts or football pants.

~~~

There is, of course, no science to this at all. It’s just about guys who stick in your mind because they always looked good for the styles of their era, and because they always seem to care about how the wore the uni, and did it a certain amount of style, restraint and respect for both the uniform itself and the traditions of the game.

Thanks Ricko! OK folks, there you have it. Just two guys’ opinion of some athletes (and obviously, not only are there many we didn’t mention, but the ones we did had longevity as well as talent on their side) who just knew how to wear a uniform. There have got to be more. And you may disagree with our selections.

So what say you, Uni Watchers — who do you think wore (or still wears) a uniform well. Who did we miss? And did we include guys you’d disagree with?

Of course, even though we didn’t nominate (except for a couple guys at the very beginning) guys who DON’T wear a uni well, feel free to make note of the guys who just don’t get it, uniform wise.

~~~~~~~~~~

“Redskins” not racist? You guys may recall a segment of the “Worst Uniform Combo” post (scroll down to “Teebz Hates Cox,”) in which the Hockey Wing President made a very impassioned argument that the Blackhawks logo is not, in any way, shape or form, racist. Reader Brad Steiner enjoyed Teebz’ piece, and feels similarly about the name of the Washington, D.C. football team. While I may not necessarily agree with this, I felt his E-mail was certainly worth posting, in the interests of allowing all viewpoints on the matter. Sit back, then, and please allow Brad to explain the origins of the “Redskins” name, and to give perspective to its continued use today:

~~~

I was reading your blog (which is a weekly must read in this house) and I was struck by your defense of the Blackhawk name stating that it “was not offensive”. I absolutely agree. I also appreciate you going into some detail about where the name came from.

Unfortunately, I wish you would have done the same homework to defend the use of “Redskins”. It is amazing to me the broad brushstroke that gets used when talking about the “Redskins”. Everyone seems to think the term is offensive, without even knowing the history as to why they are named what they are named. I can only guess it is because we are all so racially sensitive that combining the use of a color with the word skin can’t be good.

The true story is quite the opposite of what gets portrayed. It is true that George Marshall was the last to integrate his team. It is true that George Marshall has been called a racist by former members of the franchise. And it is true that the name of the team is the “Redskins”. Unfortunately, none of those things have anything to do with each other.

In 1932, George Preston Marshall became the sole owner of the Boston Braves. The city was in a financial mess and he couldn’t get the support he needed from the people of Boston. He tried to change the look/identity of the team to fuel interest. He changed the name to the “Boston Redskins”. Why? At the time, the coach of the team was a Native American named Lone Star Deitz (ironic, considering 40 years later their biggest NFL rival would turn out to be from the “Lone Star State”). The two men were dear friends. Lone Star was a Sioux and had the nickname “Ole Redskin”. A nickname that he used in referring to himself. So, George Marshall, in honor of his friend, named the team after Ole Redskin. Unfortunately, Dietz wasn’t very successful as Head Coach and was eventually replaced. His legend though, would shape the team for decades. Up until a decade or so ago, the Redskins held training camp every year at the college that Deitz starred, Carlise College in Carlisle, Pa.

If not a sexy story, it surely is not a story of racial impropriety. I wish it were told more often.

Thanks for your time…and as always, keep up the great work on Uniwatch. I am a big fan…

Brad Steiner

Thanks, Brad. Very interesting story, and certainly one I’m sure not a lot of readers have heard. Clearly, many people feel differently towards the name and its continued use today, but it lends a bit of new perspective on the matter. While it may or may not justify the continued use of the term today, it does shed new light into the origin of the term.

~~~~~~~~~~

Junior couldn’t have waited two more days to retire? And, in Seattle, they partied like it was 1995 again yesterday, with the Angels and Mariners throwing back. Interesting that the Angels would agree to it, since those of us who remember the AL West race that year remember how the Angels choked big time, losing a one-game playoff to the Mariners, and allowing the Yankees to gain the Wild Card in Don Mattingly’s final year (and only playoff appearance) in the pins.

The M’s were resplendent in teal tops and a navy crowned/teal brimmed cap. Clearly, Jim Vilk’s choice for “uni of the decade,” we’re quite sure he’d wear that. Unfortunately for the Mariners, a close game became a blowout, which led to…well…tears.

It’s really a shame the Kid decided to hang up his spikes earlier this week. Perhaps he could have lasted until yesterday, and the M’s could have signed the Unit to a one day contract. Bet they could have moved a couple dozen more of those jerseys that way.

~~~~~~~~~~

Remember the ways we used to distract the hitter, back in the day? “Hey…battah-battah” and such? We had nothing on the boys from Benchies. Here’s Rick:

Yeah, your batbag’s a portable locker room. Among other things, you’ve got an Ace bandage and training tape and a glove-lacing tool and extra batting gloves and band-aids, a couple balls, some shoelaces and a small jug of Ibuprofen. But that doesn’t mean it’s EVERYONE’s portable locker room. Or does it?

Guess The Game From The Scoreboard: Reader and guest scoreboard provider Andrew Ross sent in today’s GTG, which according to Andrew is a “scoreboard shot that will probably be next to impossible for Uni Watch readers.” I’d agree. Ready? Guess The Game From The Scoreboard Date, location and final score, please, and be sure to link to your answer. And, as always, if you enjoy the game, please send me some new scoreboards! Drop me a line. Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~

Back again with more Uniform Tweaks, Concepts and Revisions today. Lots to get to, and if you have a tweak, change or concept for any sport, send them my way. Still finding the tweaks have slowed to a trickle, so if you have something you’d like to show, give me a shout.

~~~

First up today with an NFL tweak is Jonathan Brent, who have five different looks for the Titans of Tennessee:

I’ve included some tweaks to my beloved Titans’ unis… Unfortunately, I’m only savvy enough with computers to use Teambuilder, but I hope you enjoy, regardless.

Next up, also with NFL concepts, is Charlie Charnigo, who has some Ravens redesigns:

Here is a concept I did a while back. I revamped the Ravens. I always liked their number treatment, so I just made some slight modifications. I added purple pants and dropped the black ones. I also gave a unique treatment to the pants. For the helmet logo I kept the B and the Raven, but used the full face Raven logo. For the jersey I created a USC type wedge with contrasting sleeves and piping. Since sleeve length is a variable thing, I moved the numbers to the shoulders, and left the sleeves logo free. I wanted it to be modern and classic at the same time. I think I achieved my goal.

Enjoy,

Charlie Charnigo

~~~

Closing down the show today we have Amos Miller, who picked up the gauntlet I threw down requesting more tweaks. Boy…did he ever:

Well with your signal that the tweak submissions are slowing down I figured now would be the time to throw out some ideas I’d been working on for a long time.

The first one isn’t even really so much a tweak as it is a outright creation. Shortly after the winter Olympics last winter I began to think about what it would be like if there was Olympic American football. So with that in mind I created just a few teams for a few nations. I’ve compiled a US team, a Swedish team, a Canadian team, a Russian team, a German team, and a throwback Soviet Union team.

My second one here is more based on the articles that have been running the last month about black for the sake of black. And while I rarely agree with teams that go BFSB I do have to say I found a few that I personally like with the darker hue. Anyway I’ve got the 49ers, Packers, Bears, Vikings, Seahawks, Rams, Cowboys, and Broncos all decked out it BFSB gear.

Thanks as always for the fine weekend read.

*Note to self: be careful what you wish for. I kid, I kid. Thanks to everyone for their submissions. Back next time with more. Keep ’em coming!

~~~~~~~~~~

OK. Today’s smorgasbord is complete. Everyone have a great Sunday. And don’t forget, a lot of fine men in uniform began Operation Neptune some sixty-six years ago today.

~~~

After Jackie Robinson the most important black in baseball history is Reggie Jackson, I really mean that. — Reggie Jackson

George Preston Marshall “has been called a racist by former members of the franchise”. Right, there’s no indication he actually WAS a racist.

From Sports Illustrated, October 12, 2009…

In 1937, angered by meager support from fans and the press, Marshall had moved the Redskins from Boston to his hometown, D.C. The nation’s capital was segregated then, and Marshall was determined to keep his team as white as the full-page newspaper ad he once ran for his laundry chain, empty except for small type at the bottom that read, THIS SPACE WAS CLEANED BY PALACE LAUNDRY. He ordered the Redskins Band to play Dixie before games and eventually changed a line in Hail to the Redskins, the team’s fight song, from “fight for old D.C.” to “fight for old Dixie.”

From the NFL’s reintegration in 1946 until Marshall was incapacitated by a stroke in 1963, the Redskins had just three winning seasons, yet the owner resolutely refused to change. Even as Washington Post columnist Shirley Povich made sport of how “the Redskins’ end zone has frequently been integrated by Negro players,” Marshall insisted, “We’ll start signing Negroes when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing whites.”

When President John F. Kennedy took office in 1961, the Redskins had just drafted 20 more white players in the aftermath of a 1-9-2 season. On March 24 Interior Secretary Stewart Udall notified Marshall that the new D.C. Stadium, for which Marshall had just signed a 30-year lease, was being built with public funds in Anacostia Park and therefore was part of the Capitol Parks system, which fell under Udall’s jurisdiction. To play in the stadium, Udall declared, the Redskins would have to integrate.

Marshall reacted as defiantly as ever. “I didn’t know the government had the right to tell a showman how to cast the play,” he said. American Nazi Party members, with no evident sense of irony, demonstrated in D.C. with placards reading KEEP REDSKINS WHITE. With behind-the-scenes pressure from NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle, Marshall finally relented. Udall agreed to let the Redskins use the new stadium as long as they desegregated by the 1962 season. One of the first two blacks to suit up for the team, Bobby Mitchell, would wind up in the Hall of Fame. And with the Redskins under new management, he went to work in the front office when he retired as a player in 1968 and stayed for the next 35 years.

Marshall died in 1969 after six years in a vegetative state. In his will he left $6 million for the health, education and welfare of children in greater D.C., with the proviso that none of it be spent “for any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.”

From Marshall’s obituary in The Washington Post…

“On the racial question Marshall always was quite careful about what he said on the record and what he put in writing. He had a stock answer: ‘I’m not in the business of exploiting any race or religion. I’m solely interested in fielding a winning football team.’ However, it seemed more than coincidental that his Redskins never gave as much as a preseason tryout to Negro before 1962 when seven went to training camp and four made the team.”

Even the Pro Football Hall of Fame (in it’s description of Marshall’s qualifications for induction) acknowledged that he was compelled to employ Affrican-American players…

“Marshall was totally involved in all aspects of his team’s operation and endured his share of criticism for not integrating his team until being forced to do so in 1962.”

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that there were–and still are–highly public, powerful people who are thoroughly racist? You don’t overlook it, ignore it, sweep it under the rug or revise history to change it, just because they were involved with your favorite team.

—Ricko

Steve|
June 6, 2010 at 9:23 am |

Brad, great clarification on the team name, Redskins. Sometimes I feel that non-Native Americans get more wrapped up in the name than Natives do. I have a very close friend who is part of the Mattaponi tribe in VA. When I asked him his thoughts on the Redskins name, he stated that it is not seen (at least by his community) as offensive and that fellow Native Americans have more important things to worry about. Maybe his opinion doesn’t echo other Native Americans?

Anyway, I’m off my soapbox now. Just wanted to give my 2 cents on the issue. Take care guys.

Brad Steiner’s story well told as it is, and if one believes Lone Star Dietz more than tolerated his nickname, does not address the other truth. The term “redskin” was equal to the infamous N-word, when used in the 19th & early 20th centuries.

Though African-Americans don’t tolerate being called the N-word by non-Blacks, some do use it when referring to each other. I know this to be true first hand. They wouldn’t like me using it the same way.

Many so called nicknames are not enjoyed by the person or group to whom they are attached. Hunchbacks used to be considered good luck charms for teams, or rubbing Black people’s heads – should we still keep those practices? They had their origins in ignorant times. Much like say – not over turning an ump’s wrong call despite clear incontrovertible fact?

AND the worst part regardless of the Washington D.C. NFL franchise origins, it is in the capitol of the USA. Makes us still look stupid & myopic. Especially after the Suffragettes & 1947.

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 9:43 am |

How’s this for pumping irony?

George Preston Marshall is buried in Indian Mound Cemetery, Romney, W.Va.

—Ricko

Terry Proctor|
June 6, 2010 at 9:50 am |

After seeing those great shots of Musial, Banks and Clemente and then looking at the slovenly Brewers one can only surmise that the time has come for the “MLB Uniform Police” which will establish the proper way to wear the uniform. I therefore would like to nominate Paul, Ricko and Phil as “associate members” from the fans and hope that their input will help lead to a return to good, old fashioned uniform decorum. Any comments?

Also, are any of you aware that Bobby Hull wore the numbers 16 and 7 with the Blackhawks before donning number 9? And that Hull wore number 16 in Hartford because Gordie Howe was still playing for the Whale when Bobby joined the team?

Can someone help me out: I could have sworn that at some point under Jon Gruden, the Buccaneers were giving out pride stickers that players wore in practice (obviously, they’re illegal to wear in games). But I can’t find photographic evidence or even confirmation that I’m not crazy.

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 9:59 am |

As Phil noted, a long time ago, today was The Longest Day.

From TodayInBaseballHistory.com…
June 6, 1944 – All major league games are canceled as the country’s focus is turned toward Europe while allied forces invade occupied France.

And why not. So many people wondering how many men would never come home from Omaha, Utah, Sword…

Yeah, they were the greatest generation. Definitely. The scope of their national resolve and sacrifice is almost totally lost on today’s America. To be expected, I suppose; only 10% of those who served in WWII are still alive. Which probably also means that only 10% of those who lived through it as adults back home are still alive.

As Tom Brokaw wrote, “They won the war, they saved the world.”

—Ricko

Mike|
June 6, 2010 at 10:01 am |

And as far as the Redskin thing – nobody is disputing that Marshall was a bigot: he clearly hated blacks. I’m not entirely sure how that applies to the Redskin name; if he named the team the n-words, that would be a different story (of course, Marshall never would have done that – and that’s really the entire point. You don’t name your football after something you hate and don’t respect.)

I will point out that Deitz’s Indian blood has been called into question.

Finally, can we please, please stop saying “it’s the same as the n-word.” It’s not. No word is the same as the n-word, and suggesting otherwise is bewildering.

Brad|
June 6, 2010 at 10:11 am |

I would never make a case for anyone being racist or not. Who am I to judge? Do I know what you scream when the windows are rolled up? No, and nor do I care.

The point for me is intent. I think if you deem certain words offensive, those who wish to offend will find new words to use. Then we just spin ourselves around and chase our tail like a cat.

I also don’t buy the N-word comparison. No one knows how groups were affected by words in 1932. Are we more racially sensitive today? Of course. Are we seriously going to get in a hypothetical debate about what may or may not have been offensive 80 years ago? Do we even know if it was offensive 80 years ago? For me, I don’t wish to re-write history based on the whims of floating morals that will change another dozen times in the next decade.

[quote comment=”393138″]And as far as the Redskin thing – nobody is disputing that Marshall was a bigot: he clearly hated blacks. I’m not entirely sure how that applies to the Redskin name; if he named the team the n-words, that would be a different story (of course, Marshall never would have done that – and that’s really the entire point. You don’t name your football after something you hate and don’t respect.)

I will point out that Deitz’s Indian blood has been called into question.

Finally, can we please, please stop saying “it’s the same as the n-word.” It’s not. No word is the same as the n-word, and suggesting otherwise is bewildering.[/quote]

True that. “Redskins” was still being bandied about in movie westerns of the early ’50s in a manner that no one would have even thought of using the n-word on screen.

I think the connection between Marshall’s personal belief system and the “Redskins” team name is the entirely valid thought that someone without his particular world view might have seen it as likely to be offensive and opted for a change. That would mean we wouldn’t even be talking about it today.

So the issue isn’t that he chose it. It’s that his sticking with it can, rightly or wrongly, very easily be taken as an extention of his narrowness.

Let’s rush those Titans concept unis into production because they’re perfect.

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 10:21 am |

[quote comment=”393139″]I would never make a case for anyone being racist or not. Who am I to judge? Do I know what you scream when the windows are rolled up? No, and nor do I care.

The point for me is intent. I think if you deem certain words offensive, those who wish to offend will find new words to use. Then we just spin ourselves around and chase our tail like a cat.

I also don’t buy the N-word comparison. No one knows how groups were affected by words in 1932. Are we more racially sensitive today? Of course. Are we seriously going to get in a hypothetical debate about what may or may not have been offensive 80 years ago? Do we even know if it was offensive 80 years ago? For me, I don’t wish to re-write history based on the whims of floating morals that will change another dozen times in the next decade.

Thanks for posting the email…Nice conversation happening.

Brad[/quote]

Then why did you softball Marshall’s clearly racist behavior and attitudes? That was the only thing I took issue with. You could have made every point you made and still admitted the man’s philosophical warts.

But hiding them seems to, in fact, weaken all those points because it’s like, “Don’t look over there, you’ll see something that weakens my contentions.”

btw…sitting at KCI and waiting for a flight to SLC…laughing my ass off at this seems to really piss off the people around me.

Ricardo Leonor|
June 6, 2010 at 10:46 am |

I have heard a few people on here being critical of the teal Mariner jerseys…really! Just seeing them now again….they may just be the best solid color jersey ever to grace a baseball diamond! They look great! For some reason they look much better than when the Marlins went teal…

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 10:50 am |

[quote comment=”393146″]Ricko –

Why did I “brush off”?

Brevity, probably.[/quote]

“It is true that George Marshall has been called a racist by former members of the franchise.”

That more than brevity. That’s spin. That’s making it sound like, “Hey, it was nothing more than nasty comments by bitter former employees,” that it was all just hearsay.

And that’s not true. Not at all.

For one thing, the Secretary of the Interior getting involved certainly indicates a level beyond, and that things were far more public than, “former members of the franchise.”

Or do you actually believe poor ol’ George was just a victim of evil rumor mongers?

—Ricko

FormerDirtDart|
June 6, 2010 at 10:55 am |

[quote comment=”393137″]As Phil noted, a long time ago, today was The Longest Day.

From TodayInBaseballHistory.com…
June 6, 1944 – All major league games are canceled as the country’s focus is turned toward Europe while allied forces invade occupied France.

And why not. So many people wondering how many men would never come home from Omaha, Utah, Sword…

Yeah, they were the greatest generation. Definitely. The scope of their national resolve and sacrifice is almost totally lost on today’s America. To be expected, I suppose; only 10% of those who served in WWII are still alive. Which probably also means that only 10% of those who lived through it as adults back home are still alive.

As Tom Brokaw wrote, “They won the war, they saved the world.”

—Ricko[/quote]
This is a day that does not pass without me noticing it.
Back before I added “Former”, I was a Dirt Dart. One who found pleasure in waddling out of perfectly good aircraft, and plummeting toward the surface of the planet earth.
In April 2002, I had the distinct privilege of parachuting into Normandy France. The citizens of St. Mere-Eglise honored us as if we were the same men who had fought for their city some 58 years earlier.
We, the senior leadership of 1st Battalion, 508th Infantry (Airborne Battalion Combat Team), would spend the next few days studying the former battlefields.
The challenges faced by those men, so many years ago, become more of a reality once you have stood on the same ground.

Chris B|
June 6, 2010 at 11:02 am |

I noticed something glaring about those replica California Angels uniforms (worn ’93 – ’96). The name on the front should have been vertically arched, not radially arched. The back and the sleeves looked great, by the way.

Those ’93-’96 Angels road unis are among my favorite of all time, but there was one glaring error- the team name should have been vertically arched, not radially. Other than that, the back, both sleeves and cap looked great.

“It is true that George Marshall has been called a racist by former members of the franchise.”

That more than brevity. That’s spin. That’s making it sound like, “Hey, it was nothing more than nasty comments by bitter former employees,” that it was all just hearsay.

And that’s not true. Not at all.

For one thing, the Secretary of the Interior getting involved certainly indicates a level beyond, and that things were far more public than, “former members of the franchise.”

Or do you actually believe poor ol’ George was just a victim of evil rumor mongers?

–Ricko

————————–

I don’t think that Brad was saying that Marshall was not racist person. I think that’s a given. I do think that he presented the other side of the argument, and presented it well, without spin.

I think at this point, it’s a matter of one’s opinion. We can point out this or that to argue our points, but neither side is going to believe they are wrong. I for one, feel a special connection to the name as a native Washingtonian and someone to this day bleeds burgundy and gold. As silly as it sounds, I think the day the Redskins change their name, will be a really sad one for me. I feel connected to that name and the great memories associated with it like RFK, Riggo, The Hogs, Monk, etc., etc.

Chris B|
June 6, 2010 at 11:08 am |

Those ’93-’96 Angels road unis are among my favorite of all time, but there was one glaring error- the team name should have been vertically arched, not radially. Other than that, the back, both sleeves and cap looked great.

the whole “redskin” thing obviously touches a nerve with many people…glad to see thoughtful and constructive commentary on the subject

while i will agree that at one time, the monicker “redskin” may not have been considered a racist or offensive term, i’m not necessarily sure that’s still the case today — that’s not being PC, but pragmatic

whether one considers the helmet (and name) offensive makes for great debate; and while an obvious oversimplification, i can guarantee that the current washington team were called the “yellowskins” and had this for a helmet, or the “blackskins” and had this, there’d have been a name/logo change long ago…yet “redskins” doesn’t seem to muster the same outrage…at least not across the board

[quote comment=”393134″]After seeing those great shots of Musial, Banks and Clemente and then looking at the slovenly Brewers one can only surmise that the time has come for the “MLB Uniform Police” which will establish the proper way to wear the uniform. I therefore would like to nominate Paul, Ricko and Phil as “associate members” from the fans and hope that their input will help lead to a return to good, old fashioned uniform decorum. Any comments?

Also, are any of you aware that Bobby Hull wore the numbers 16 and 7 with the Blackhawks before donning number 9? And that Hull wore number 16 in Hartford because Gordie Howe was still playing for the Whale when Bobby joined the team?[/quote]

I agree. A player should not be alliwed on the fielf if he isn’t dressed like Musial or Banks, but not so loose fitting. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Tony|
June 6, 2010 at 11:42 am |

Just wanted to add my perspective on offensive names/words.
I am a proud product of native american & black heritage on both sides of my family. Almost 200 years worth.
I hate the N-bomb word. Maybe I’m a little more old school, but I hate when black folks call each other that word too. I’ve heard more than one white person use “they call themselves that” as an excuse to say the word, but that’s wrong too. Imagine you see your brother, or best friend walking ahead of you on the street. You may run up behind them & have a few choice words for them, just kidding around: “Hey you dumbass!” When your brother/friend realizes that it is you, then it’s all fun & games; they know you don’t really mean what you say. Same thing if a black person drops the n-bomb on me. I know they really couldn’t be racist. If a white person uses it, I can’t be really sure of their intentions, unless I know the person well. Again, I still hate it when ANYONE uses the word.

As far as the use of redskin, I’m not really offended by that. It may have been a real nasty word once upon a time, but having a football team named that takes all the power away from the word.
I don’t have a problem with any of the native american named teams, like the Indians, or Braves. Like someone said above, you wouldn’t name your team after something you don’t respect. I don’t see any Scandinavians spazzing out about the Vikings. I don’t see any descendants of our founding fathers wanting the Patriots to change their name.
That said, Chief Wahoo really needs to go.

Bruce|
June 6, 2010 at 11:54 am |

Arguing that naming the team Redskins after a Native American coach, in my opinion, further shows the name had racist intent. If the Celtics had changed their name to the Darkies or Coloreds when Bill Russell was their head coach.

Furthermore, to anyone that says the use of “redskin” is not as racially offensive as the “N-word”: Are you Native American? Have you asked any Native American how they feel about this? If the Cleveland Indians logo was a smiling black man with huge red lips, would you not think that is offensive because they called the teams the Coons instead of the Niggers?

Brad|
June 6, 2010 at 12:09 pm |

[quote comment=”393159″]Arguing that naming the team Redskins after a Native American coach, in my opinion, further shows the name had racist intent. If the Celtics had changed their name to the Darkies or Coloreds when Bill Russell was their head coach.

Furthermore, to anyone that says the use of “redskin” is not as racially offensive as the “N-word”: Are you Native American? Have you asked any Native American how they feel about this? [/quote]

Native Americans have been asked about this…and this was there response:

the whole “redskin” thing obviously touches a nerve with many people…glad to see thoughtful and constructive commentary on the subject

while i will agree that at one time, the monicker “redskin” may not have been considered a racist or offensive term, i’m not necessarily sure that’s still the case today — that’s not being PC, but pragmatic

whether one considers the helmet (and name) offensive makes for great debate; and while an obvious oversimplification, i can guarantee that the current washington team were called the “yellowskins” and had this for a helmet, or the “blackskins” and had this, there’d have been a name/logo change long ago…yet “redskins” doesn’t seem to muster the same outrage…at least not across the board

good debate today, folks[/quote]

I ask again….should we change things based the floating moral whims of culture that might, or might not, change in 30 minutes?

Dillon|
June 6, 2010 at 12:12 pm |

does anyone know where i can find solid stirrups online, like 4″ ones?

That Matsui pic should be a big sign to the tigers that having a needless white outline on your road jerseys is so 1995

IowaAnt|
June 6, 2010 at 12:27 pm |

The teal Mariners jerseys could be the most underrated 3rd jersey in baseball. It’s a clean look while using a unique color true to the team. I am not sure if there is another 3rd jersey that is so true to the team colors and looks so good, (maybe the red Boston one). Always wish the team would bring them back full time, while using the same font they use on the blue 3rd. change the blue jersey’s front to “Seattle” and they would have the best 3rd jersey combo in Baseball.

Bruce Genther|
June 6, 2010 at 12:31 pm |

I couldn’t agree more that ceratin players knew how to wear their uniforms…put I think it is importanmt to note that the teams had a role in how players looked before we slid into the ballon uniforms of today. From the 1940’s to the late 1960’s, teams provided uniforms tailored to the player, meaning that pants were hemmed at a ceratin length, socks were the heavy wool and the stirrups were all six inches, shirts were a set size, and players did not have the option to make modifications…older players made sure that all bottons were buttoned, no pocket flaps were visible and caps were worn straight on and not on the side of the head and two sizes to big. Pro teams can still mandate how the uniform should be worn, but are afraid of the player’s union. The inmates now run the prison!!!

JTH|
June 6, 2010 at 12:38 pm |

I know I’m one of a select few readers here who’s also a fan of the band, but this song paints a good picture of the events leading up to the invasion of Gold Beach (by UK forces) on June 6, 1944.

Max|
June 6, 2010 at 12:41 pm |

Does anyone know where I can get good sanitaries for wear under my stirrups? I’m having a terrible time finding decent ones.

LI Phil|
June 6, 2010 at 12:42 pm |

[quote comment=”393161″]

I ask again….should we change things based the floating moral whims of culture that might, or might not, change in 30 minutes?[/quote]

do you honestly think this nation will in 30 seconds, 30 minutes or 30 years, feel the term “redskin” is no longer offensive?

and as far as that study which stated “90%” of native americans feel the term is not offensive, it also noted that 9% do…should their opinions be completely disregarded? i believe de Tocqueville made mention of that possibility in 1835 or so

i believe both sides have a right to their opinions, but i also believe i could find a study (if i wanted to look hard enough) that would find a majority opposed to the term, and who consider it racist

you made valid, rational points, and you made them well — don’t want to argue personal opinions and beliefs; what i do hate (and many do this — not trying to single you out) are those who point to some study, opinion poll or other set of specious data to support their point(s)…just as easily as you could say, based on that study, that 90% of native americans don’t find the term offensive, i could say 10% (or 9% — i hate rounding) DO…that’s not a insignificant minority

i appreciate the civil and forthright debate, and as i said, you made excellent points; but whether “redskins” back in 1937 (or so) was racist, neutral or even a term of endearment, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily justifiable today — but the history of the term…that’s something i don’t believe a lot of us knew, and as i said in the intro, i’m glad you were able to bring that forth

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 12:49 pm |

[quote comment=”393169″][quote comment=”393161″]

I ask again….should we change things based the floating moral whims of culture that might, or might not, change in 30 minutes?[/quote]

do you honestly think this nation will in 30 seconds, 30 minutes or 30 years, feel the term “redskin” is no longer offensive?

and as far as that study which stated “90%” of native americans feel the term is not offensive, it also noted that 9% do…should their opinions be completely disregarded? i believe de Tocqueville made mention of that possibility in 1835 or so

i believe both sides have a right to their opinions, but i also believe i could find a study (if i wanted to look hard enough) that would find a majority opposed to the term, and who consider it racist

you made valid, rational points, and you made them well — don’t want to argue personal opinions and beliefs; what i do hate (and many do this — not trying to single you out) are those who point to some study, opinion poll or other set of specious data to support their point(s)…just as easily as you could say, based on that study, that 90% of native americans don’t find the term offensive, i could say 10% (or 9% — i hate rounding) DO…that’s not a insignificant minority

i appreciate the civil and forthright debate, and as i said, you made excellent points; but whether “redskins” back in 1937 (or so) was racist, neutral or even a term of endearment, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily justifiable today — but the history of the term…that’s something i don’t believe a lot of us knew, and as i said in the intro, i’m glad you were able to bring that forth[/quote]

I often try to decide if Redskins has become “acceptable” largely because it’s been around for so long, and because it’s used in the upper echelon of things.

I mean, you have to think that some people, especially young people, coming across it for the first time think, “Well, if it’s okay for the NFL to use it—and in the nation’s capital, yet—then I guess it must be okay.”

I find myself wondering how acceptable it would be if, say, there were a town called China Falls or something, and its high school teams had been named the “Coolies” back in 1937. Wonder if that nickhame would have survived until today.

—Ricko

DanK|
June 6, 2010 at 1:12 pm |

Good conversation regarding the Redskins. While I am personally unsettled by the name and what it evokes, the Washington Redskins remain one of the most popular NFL teams in Indian Country. Obviously this feeling is not universal, but strong nonetheless. Knowing as much as we can about these histories is important. It’s true that these names are typically given out of respect (like the Cleveland Indians) but at the same time retain symbolic aesthetic elements that are sadly dated (like the Cleveland Indians).

Love the Titans tweak. That center helmet stripe, and alt logo combo is very nice.

Scott M.X. Turner|
June 6, 2010 at 1:29 pm |

There’s a pile of new membership cards staring me down, so I’ll try and be quick about this. Believe me, whatever I jot down is more brief than the usual verbosity I throw into this topic.

* Bruce (comment #36) said what I would have. LI Phil, too, with his helmet illustrations.

* The Washington football team’s nickname hasn’t made “redskins” a less derogatory term. Rather, Native American mascots and nicknames still in use shows how little American culture values Native Americans. What other ethnic group in this country has been relegated to reservations? (And please, don’t answer with numb remarks about casinos making it all okay.)

* the origin story. Let’s say it was “Ol’ Nig” Johnson who was a good friend of the team owner, who names the team the Washington Niggers out of respect for his dear friend.

It’s a ridiculous rationale for the Washington team’s nickname.

* Regardless of Dietz’s heritage, he carried the “Ole Redskin” nickname. Who knows why he embraced it. Times weren’t good for boat-rocking minorities back then. (They still aren’t.) You think he’d have gotten a head-coaching job in the NFL while making a stink about his nickname? Especially with an owner like Marshall?

* One of the big problems here is the casual use of things sacred to Native Americans. Feathers. Facepaint. Songs. Chants. Dances. Clothing. Weaponry. Imagery designed by non Native-Americans.

A white college kid dancing around on a football field is a misuse of religious elements. To some people, blasphemously. That should be enough right there to put an end to this practice.

Imagine if the Padres had a mascot dressed in robes, fake seminary haircut, swinging incense thuribles, spraying people with fake holy water, and hollering pidgin Latin about God and Jesus. Yikes.

* I’ve seen these polls about Native Americans not being offended by nicknames and mascots. Do we determine decency based on a) poll numbers and b) what the majority believes?

At best, only a minority of Americans lifted a finger to stop Japanese internment camps, help Jews in Europe or, before the 1950s, end segregation in America.

Were those things okay back then, because a majority didn’t object — or worse, kept quiet? Are they only bad now, with hindsight and changing mores? Resting on popular opinion is sometimes a crutch holding up unsteady rationales.

* Other ethnic groups don’t take offense to nicknames because they weren’t the ones whose culture was destroyed, land taken, populations killed through disease and war.

Simply, the culture that wrecked Native Americans’ way of life is the one bestowing these nicknames. Imagine you get beat up on the playground, so badly your life will never be the same, and your attacker looks down and says “I’m gonna name my gang after you.”

Some honor.

Yes, America has historically harshed on anyone not a blue-blood WASP. By now, though, European groups tagged with nicknames like the Fighting Irish and Vikings hold enormous sway in the halls of power, influence and commerce.

Native Americans…not so much.

* For the record, I’m part Irish, and I despise “Fighting Irish” as a nickname, and worse, the pugilistic leprechaun logo Notre Dame deploys.

* “I ask again….should we change things based the floating moral whims of culture that might, or might not, change in 30 minutes?” I didn’t realize that decency and respect were “whims of culture.”

If those qualities are as disposable as the current teen idol, we’re in big, big trouble.

Okay…back to the membership cards. You new members deserve a less-talky/more-designy approach.

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 1:33 pm |

[quote comment=”393172″]In my opinion, there was no one who looked better in a football uniform than Joe Washington. Absolutely love the Goggles Pizano look when he was with the Colts.

[quote comment=”393177″][quote comment=”393172″]In my opinion, there was no one who looked better in a football uniform than Joe Washington. Absolutely love the Goggles Pizano look when he was with the Colts.

Righto Ricko! Red laces with the ‘skins and blue with the Colts ta boot. Oh my, just too much uni goodness.

=bg=|
June 6, 2010 at 2:03 pm |

Lincecum once again swoosh-less on the undershirt.

TD|
June 6, 2010 at 2:18 pm |

Gotta go with Steve Garvey. Dude was so anal about everything that his unis always looked tailored and perfect, with the high-waist belt, Joe Torre high-hat, and a pants-to-shoetops distance that never changed, from the early days with the Dodgers to the old man days with the Padres.

[quote comment=”393134″]
Also, are any of you aware that Bobby Hull wore the numbers 16 and 7 with the Blackhawks before donning number 9? And that Hull wore number 16 in Hartford because Gordie Howe was still playing for the Whale when Bobby joined the team?[/quote]

Yes. Very aware. ;o)

Terry Proctor|
June 6, 2010 at 3:02 pm |

[quote comment=”393168″]Does anyone know where I can get good sanitaries for wear under my stirrups? I’m having a terrible time finding decent ones.[/quote]

Any sporting goods store that sells Twin City stirrups should also have sannies. Stirrups and sannies go together like bacon & eggs.

James P.|
June 6, 2010 at 3:04 pm |

[quote comment=”393148″]Paul Rudd went full stirrups with the Royals recently.

Buck Martinez on the Rogers’ Sportsnet feed of the Blue Jays-Yankees game spoke in length about helmet that Francisco Cervelli is using this year for the Yankees.

Cervelli was beaned in the head in Winter Ball and then again in Spring Ball, resulting in a serious concussion for the catcher. His new helmet is pictured here on the right, and it is designed to reduce the concussions by cushioning his head more. Yes, it’s considerably larger.

Apparently, Derek Jeter has nicknamed him “Gazoo” in the clubhouse, and the name has stuck. Jeter took BP with Cervelli’s helmet on, and remarked something that it felt like taking BP as a mascot. LOL

scott|
June 6, 2010 at 3:32 pm |

[quote comment=”393149″]I have heard a few people on here being critical of the teal Mariner jerseys…really! Just seeing them now again….they may just be the best solid color jersey ever to grace a baseball diamond! They look great! For some reason they look much better than when the Marlins went teal…[/quote]

Nope, solid jerseys paired with white or gray pants never look good, no matter the color of the jersey. And I don’t recall the Marlins ever wearing a teal jersey. The Marlins did have teal hats and sleeves for their home whites back when they first began play, and I thought that was a good look.

scott|
June 6, 2010 at 3:33 pm |

[quote comment=”393181″]Gotta go with Steve Garvey. Dude was so anal about everything that his unis always looked tailored and perfect, with the high-waist belt, Joe Torre high-hat, and a pants-to-shoetops distance that never changed, from the early days with the Dodgers to the old man days with the Padres.[/quote]

Garvey’s a great choice for a ballplayer who always looked good in the uniform. He even helped the Padres scrap the dark-colored tops, at least for a few years.

Loved the throwback photos from Seattle yesterday, I have that Halos jersey in my closet, and would’ve bought the M’s teal #24 if that had ever found its way to the clearance rack.

As for the naming debate, add me to the ‘change it’ column. ‘Change it now’ actually. Having the team represent DC, a town which was most instrumental in the ethnic cleansing, is adding insult to injury.

Would shortening it to just ‘Skins solve anything?

Logo wise I think the crest, and the Blackhawks crest are both very dignified and respectful. I’d add the U of Illinois logo as well. Chief Wahoo on the otherhand is horrible. I consider that the equivalent of Phil’s ‘blackskins’ example.

[quote comment=”393190″][quote comment=”393149″]I have heard a few people on here being critical of the teal Mariner jerseys…really! Just seeing them now again….they may just be the best solid color jersey ever to grace a baseball diamond! They look great! For some reason they look much better than when the Marlins went teal…[/quote]

Nope, solid jerseys paired with white or gray pants never look good, no matter the color of the jersey. And I don’t recall the Marlins ever wearing a teal jersey. The Marlins did have teal hats and sleeves for their home whites back when they first began play, and I thought that was a good look.[/quote]

speaking of Wearing it Well, how about a Uni Watch award to “those who get it”. For example, after this baseball season, give a nod/ award to those who wear it well at each position (if you can find that many!) sort of like a Uni Watch’s version of the gold glove award. What do you think gang?

[quote comment=”393197″]speaking of Wearing it Well, how about a Uni Watch award to “those who get it”.

For example, after this baseball season, give a nod/ award to those who wear it well at each position (if you can find that many!) sort of like a Uni Watch’s version of the gold glove award.

What do you think gang?[/quote]

Like it. Maybe even present him with some golden stirrups.

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 4:23 pm |

Just in from the Bay Area…

A’s in alt black hats and jerseys last night.
And again today.

Is it “Be Like the Raiders Weekend” or something?

More importantly, why would they WANT to be?

—Ricko

Komet17|
June 6, 2010 at 4:23 pm |

[quote comment=”393181″]Gotta go with Steve Garvey. Dude was so anal about everything that his unis always looked tailored and perfect, with the high-waist belt, Joe Torre high-hat, and a pants-to-shoetops distance that never changed, from the early days with the Dodgers to the old man days with the Padres.[/quote]

[quote comment=”393186″][quote comment=”393134″]
Also, are any of you aware that Bobby Hull wore the numbers 16 and 7 with the Blackhawks before donning number 9? And that Hull wore number 16 in Hartford because Gordie Howe was still playing for the Whale when Bobby joined the team?[/quote]

Yes. Very aware. ;o)[/quote]
Did not know Bobby Hull once had #7.
I DID know that Hull, Gordie Howe, and Rocket Richard set the tradition for Goal Scorer’s #9 jersey, after they all transferred from “high numbers” to #9. I think Howe came first, just because he was offered a lower number and the associated improved sleeping accommodations on road trips. Maurice Richard’s #9 was in honor of his first child, born at nine pounds. And Hull’s #9 was in honor of Howe.

That Matsui pic should be a big sign to the tigers that having a needless white outline on your road jerseys is so 1995[/quote]

You know what else was great about those throwbacks yesterday? No MLB patches on the back of the jersey for either side. Amazing look, I miss those Mariners alts.

Komet17|
June 6, 2010 at 4:26 pm |

[quote comment=”393192″]Loved the throwback photos from Seattle yesterday, I have that Halos jersey in my closet, and would’ve bought the M’s teal #24 if that had ever found its way to the clearance rack.

As for the naming debate, add me to the ‘change it’ column. ‘Change it now’ actually. Having the team represent DC, a town which was most instrumental in the ethnic cleansing, is adding insult to injury.

Would shortening it to just ‘Skins solve anything?

Logo wise I think the crest, and the Blackhawks crest are both very dignified and respectful. I’d add the U of Illinois logo as well. Chief Wahoo on the otherhand is horrible. I consider that the equivalent of Phil’s ‘blackskins’ example.[/quote]

Ah, but hte U of Illinois logo is no more…U of I took it out of circulation 3-4 years ago when it dropped Chief Illiniwek at the NCAA’s insistence.

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 4:29 pm |

Late last night on “Baseball Tonight” Buck Showalter said he was all for players wanting to have certain ways of wearing their unis, but…

Then ran a highlight of Josh Hamilton getting HIS CLEATS TANGLED IN HIS JAMMIES making a play on a ball deep in the left field corner.

Thought folks here would want to know.

—Ricko

Brad|
June 6, 2010 at 4:36 pm |

[quote comment=”393169″][quote comment=”393161″]

i appreciate the civil and forthright debate, and as i said, you made excellent points; but whether “redskins” back in 1937 (or so) was racist, neutral or even a term of endearment, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily justifiable today — but the history of the term…that’s something i don’t believe a lot of us knew, and as i said in the intro, i’m glad you were able to bring that forth[/quote]

Aside from what you might think of the name, can anyone argue that the team/organization has done more to enhance Native Americans, their history, and their relations than degrade it?

You ask “Should 10% of those who do find it offensive get ignored?” I can find 10% of people who find Family Guy offensive…does that mean you take the show off of the air?

Brad|
June 6, 2010 at 4:38 pm |

And by the way….As a Met fan…I even agree about the Jeter point made in the post….hard to argue with that.

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 4:44 pm |

flip said…

“No problem whatsoever with the Braves or Chiefs. To me, it’s no different than the Generals or Admirals.”

Now, see, that there right there is a valid point that almost NEVER seems to get mentioned. Braves, Chiefs, Blackhawks, even Warriors…are specific roles, positions or individuals. To some extent Tribal names (Seminoles, Sioux, etc.) are similiar because they recognize a particular group of people with certain belief systems or histories. The issue, of course, then becomes how they are portrayed.

But Indians and Redskins make reference to an ethnic group in general. And one of them has long been used as a slur.

For example: “Jews,” nope. “Maccabees,” maybe. Actually, other than them all being of a particular religious/ethnic background (which probably would draw flak), “Maccabees” is a pretty cool nickname.

i appreciate the civil and forthright debate, and as i said, you made excellent points; but whether “redskins” back in 1937 (or so) was racist, neutral or even a term of endearment, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily justifiable today — but the history of the term…that’s something i don’t believe a lot of us knew, and as i said in the intro, i’m glad you were able to bring that forth[/quote]

Aside from what you might think of the name, can anyone argue that the team/organization has done more to enhance Native Americans, their history, and their relations than degrade it?

You ask “Should 10% of those who do find it offensive get ignored?” I can find 10% of people who find Family Guy offensive…does that mean you take the show off of the air?[/quote]

Yeah, and the Third Reich helped make Jesse Owens famous (not saying the Redskins organization is evil and bent on world conquest, just saying that’s a lot of sunshine).

I thought those late 1990s and pre 2008 Rays uniforms, were superior to the unimaginative
style Tampa Bay wears today. Sometimes, a decent uniform is associated with a horrible team, and this is the case here. Had the Rays not changed after 2007, I think most people would have warmed up to the green accented unis when the team began winning.

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 5:02 pm |

[quote comment=”393151″][quote comment=”393137″]As Phil noted, a long time ago, today was The Longest Day.

From TodayInBaseballHistory.com…
June 6, 1944 – All major league games are canceled as the country’s focus is turned toward Europe while allied forces invade occupied France.

And why not. So many people wondering how many men would never come home from Omaha, Utah, Sword…

Yeah, they were the greatest generation. Definitely. The scope of their national resolve and sacrifice is almost totally lost on today’s America. To be expected, I suppose; only 10% of those who served in WWII are still alive. Which probably also means that only 10% of those who lived through it as adults back home are still alive.

As Tom Brokaw wrote, “They won the war, they saved the world.”

—Ricko[/quote]
This is a day that does not pass without me noticing it.
Back before I added “Former”, I was a Dirt Dart. One who found pleasure in waddling out of perfectly good aircraft, and plummeting toward the surface of the planet earth.
In April 2002, I had the distinct privilege of parachuting into Normandy France. The citizens of St. Mere-Eglise honored us as if we were the same men who had fought for their city some 58 years earlier.
We, the senior leadership of 1st Battalion, 508th Infantry (Airborne Battalion Combat Team), would spend the next few days studying the former battlefields.
The challenges faced by those men, so many years ago, become more of a reality once you have stood on the same ground.[/quote]

On the 40th anniverary of D-Day, President Reagan visited the cemetery on the bluffs of Normandy. During his remarks, he gestured from the podium to a group of aging, balding or white-haired men seated to one side, survivors of the assault on the beaches that horrific day, and said, “These are the bravest damn kids who ever lived.”

Very possibly the single most poignant thing he ever said while President.

—Ricko

concealed78|
June 6, 2010 at 5:19 pm |

[quote comment=”393165″]The teal Mariners jerseys could be the most underrated 3rd jersey in baseball. It’s a clean look while using a unique color true to the team. I am not sure if there is another 3rd jersey that is so true to the team colors and looks so good, (maybe the red Boston one). Always wish the team would bring them back full time, while using the same font they use on the blue 3rd. change the blue jersey’s front to “Seattle” and they would have the best 3rd jersey combo in Baseball.[/quote]

Oh cripes no. That jersey was hideous and trendy of the times. And LOUD. Looked too much like the Marlins. If they’re going to do a 3rd, they should use the shade of green that’s on the logo, or at least tone it down a little bit.

As for those Angels caps, I don’t think they were ever 3-D embroidered. Back in 1997 when Disney bought them, I remember seeing the CA cap in a shop, at least 50 of them sat on a table. Strange to see that in the Midwest.

Change the Washington D.C. football team’s name to the Piscataways (if they must “honor” a race of people driven off their land). Research the tribe’s history, customs and artifacts and redo the logo based on those findings. This change will spark questions and curiosity and little kids will ask what’s it all about and adults will share a part of our nation’s history that too often is neglected.

As long as we’re talking about unique colours for alternative jerseys, how would people react to a Vegas Gold Jersey? Pics coming soon.

GoMac|
June 6, 2010 at 7:42 pm |

Don’t know if anyone posted this yet.. but new NBA All-Star logo.. sorry if Paul’s brought this up previously.. I’ve been away for a while.. http://tweetphoto.com/25992621

John Zajac|
June 6, 2010 at 8:14 pm |

[quote comment=\”393215\”]It just occurred to me that the Mariners actually wore the teal-crown/blue-brim caps with those jerseys.

…maybe not in 1995, though.[/quote]
I was hoping that would be the cap of choice for the game too. Kinda sad to not see it on the field again, but the teal brought me back in time enough that I didn’t mind.

the whole “redskin” thing obviously touches a nerve with many people…glad to see thoughtful and constructive commentary on the subject

while i will agree that at one time, the monicker “redskin” may not have been considered a racist or offensive term, i’m not necessarily sure that’s still the case today — that’s not being PC, but pragmatic

whether one considers the helmet (and name) offensive makes for great debate; and while an obvious oversimplification, i can guarantee that the current washington team were called the “yellowskins” and had this for a helmet, or the “blackskins” and had this, there’d have been a name/logo change long ago…yet “redskins” doesn’t seem to muster the same outrage…at least not across the board

good debate today, folks[/quote]

If the face on the Redskins’ helmet looked like Chief Wahoo, I’d be more inclined to agree with you, Phil. But the face looks more like the one on the Blackhawks’ jerseys, and apparently that’s OK. I do agree with your first comment, though. Thank you, Walt.

[quote comment=”393160″][quote comment=”393159″]Arguing that naming the team Redskins after a Native American coach, in my opinion, further shows the name had racist intent. If the Celtics had changed their name to the Darkies or Coloreds when Bill Russell was their head coach.

Furthermore, to anyone that says the use of “redskin” is not as racially offensive as the “N-word”: Are you Native American? Have you asked any Native American how they feel about this? [/quote]

Native Americans have been asked about this…and this was there response:

Not a fan of the name myself, but if this story is accurate and only nine percent find it offensive, I’m not seeing a huge problem. Try finding any name where you can get 100% approval. I’m not saying the nine percent should just keep quiet and accept it. Keep the discussion going, but until more Native Americans are upset about this, I’m staying out of it.

JimV19|
June 6, 2010 at 8:25 pm |

Here’s one of those big but comments:

I love Terry Proctor and his contributions to this site. BUT…
I do not think MLB needs to form a uni police. The NFL has shown how ineffective that is. Yeah, some guys play along, but how many others still look like slobs and willingly…gladly…pay the fines? It’s too late for something like that when dealing with multimillionaire athletes. The only way to lose the baggy look in sports is the wait for the overall culture to change its fashion. It will, it just takes time.

[quote comment=”393219″][quote comment=\”393215\”]It just occurred to me that the Mariners actually wore the teal-crown/blue-brim caps with those jerseys.

…maybe not in 1995, though.[/quote]
I was hoping that would be the cap of choice for the game too. Kinda sad to not see it on the field again, but the teal brought me back in time enough that I didn’t mind.[/quote]

From a logo perspective, always thought the Mariners made a mistake abandoning the trident of the Alvin Davis era. It was simple, yet effective.

JimV19|
June 6, 2010 at 8:45 pm |

One more comment before I sit down to concentrate on the Lakers and Celtics:
These teams look good – a heck of lot better than if they went with a SoD version. Even the Lakers white unis are growing on me.

Oh, and for those who didn’t read last night’s comments, Oh yes I would wear that fantastic Mariners jersey!

the whole “redskin” thing obviously touches a nerve with many people…glad to see thoughtful and constructive commentary on the subject

while i will agree that at one time, the monicker “redskin” may not have been considered a racist or offensive term, i’m not necessarily sure that’s still the case today — that’s not being PC, but pragmatic

whether one considers the helmet (and name) offensive makes for great debate; and while an obvious oversimplification, i can guarantee that the current washington team were called the “yellowskins” and had this for a helmet, or the “blackskins” and had this, there’d have been a name/logo change long ago…yet “redskins” doesn’t seem to muster the same outrage…at least not across the board

good debate today, folks[/quote]

If the face on the Redskins’ helmet looked like Chief Wahoo, I’d be more inclined to agree with you, Phil. But the face looks more like the one on the Blackhawks’ jerseys, and apparently that’s OK. I do agree with your first comment, though. Thank you, Walt.[/quote]

so…because the redskins logo isn’t more offensive, you’re less inclined to think the name is? do i have that correct?

scott gleeson blue|
June 6, 2010 at 9:03 pm |

Gotta say, on the well-worn uni front, I have to vote for the Cubs/Phils Ivan DeJesus:

I always loved Roger Maris‘s look in a baseball uniform. (No, no Yankee fandom clouding my judgment here.) His pants were bloused nicely, good stirrup/sani ratio, and I LOVE his short, yet existent, sleeves. (Important distinction there. I hate Ted Kluszewski’s look because he eliminated his sleeves, ruining the integrity of the uniform. But short sleeves are great.)

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 9:14 pm |

re: ORIGIN OF THE NICKNAME REDSKINS…

According to the book, THE GAME (1962) by Sports Illustrated Senior Editor Tex Maule, recognized as one of the lone-time experts/historians on the NFL, Marshall did not become the team’s sole owner until 1933, and the team was re-named BEFORE “Lone Star” Dietz was hired.

“Because the team played at Braves Field, Marshall called them the Braves; in 1933, after losing $46,000 in his first season, Marshall moved to Fenway Park, changed the name of the club to the Redskins and took over his three partners’ interest.

“To carry out the Indian theme, Marshall hired Lone Star Dietz, a full-blooded Indian, to coach the club…”

There is no reference to anyone being called “the Ole Redskin”, or that Marshall and Dietz were friends.

Two sources, two different accounts (what IS Brad’s source, btw?)

Historians often consider the proximity of any report to the actual event. Maule is writing only 30 years after the events in question. I’ll take that over a Wikipedia (or some such) story written 75 years after the fact. Especially one that smacks of a fabrication to justify a simple marketing decision: both teams were named Braves, so change the less-established one to Redskins. Kinda like Cubs and Bears that way. Or Tigers and Lions. Pittsburgh’s early NFL efforts included a team names Pirates. And, of course, there is that “New York Football Giants” thing.

(Lest anyone think Tex Maule was not “connected”, it was he who was the middle man setting up the secret meeting between Tex Schramm and Lamar Hunt at the base of the statue of the Texas Ranger at the Dallas aiport that opened discussions eventually leading to the NFL/AFL merger).

—Ricko

LI Phil|
June 6, 2010 at 9:16 pm |

[quote comment=”393220″]

[quote comment=”393160″][quote comment=”393159″]Arguing that naming the team Redskins after a Native American coach, in my opinion, further shows the name had racist intent. If the Celtics had changed their name to the Darkies or Coloreds when Bill Russell was their head coach.

Furthermore, to anyone that says the use of “redskin” is not as racially offensive as the “N-word”: Are you Native American? Have you asked any Native American how they feel about this? [/quote]

Native Americans have been asked about this…and this was there response:

Not a fan of the name myself, but if this story is accurate and only nine percent find it offensive, I’m not seeing a huge problem. Try finding any name where you can get 100% approval. I’m not saying the nine percent should just keep quiet and accept it. Keep the discussion going, but until more Native Americans are upset about this, I’m staying out of it.[/quote]

until we poll ALL the native americans, im not buying one survey that portends that “only 9%” find the term “redskins” offensive

i bet i could go out to the shinnecock indian reservation by me, do a poll, and find 50% who say it’s offensive — would that make you feel differently?

put another way — lets say we were in a certain middle european country six or seven decades ago, and the leader of this land said “all (fill in the blank) minorities must (convert/denounce/etc.) said minority’s beliefs or face execution”…the leader then polled the country, and shockingly, 90% supported this position, since they had nothing to gain by opposing it…would that 10%’s opinion be worth dismissing?

extreme case? sure…germane to the discussion…maybe, maybe not

point being…even if that “poll” (or study or whatever it was indicating ‘only’ 10% of native americans were offended by the term “redskins”) was completely legitimate, what difference does the % make? 10% may not be a majority, but it’s NOT AN INSIGNIFICANT minority either; what if it was 20%? 49.9%? and what if a poll were found where 50.1% of the respondants found the term offensive? would you feel differently then, because then you’d have a majority?

would you be the lone holdout on a jury where you felt the accused was innocent? or because you were just a small minority, would you just assume the group spoke for you and say, “oh, they must know better, it’s 11-1 against me”?

you know i love ya jim, so this isn’t necessarily directed at you, but i just HATE when people cite a single poll, take whatever they wish from it and say “there — you see?”

I love Terry Proctor and his contributions to this site. BUT…
I do not think MLB needs to form a uni police. The NFL has shown how ineffective that is. Yeah, some guys play along, but how many others still look like slobs and willingly…gladly…pay the fines? It’s too late for something like that when dealing with multimillionaire athletes. The only way to lose the baggy look in sports is the wait for the overall culture to change its fashion. It will, it just takes time.[/quote]

What if they were not allowed to play with uni violations. No play no pay.

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 9:29 pm |

[quote comment=”393227″]I always loved Roger Maris‘s look in a baseball uniform. (No, no Yankee fandom clouding my judgment here.) His pants were bloused nicely, good stirrup/sani ratio, and I LOVE his short, yet existent, sleeves. (Important distinction there. I hate Ted Kluszewski’s look because he eliminated his sleeves, ruining the integrity of the uniform. But short sleeves are great.)[/quote]

Maris had his sleeves tailored. It can be easily seen in the numerous photos of he and Mantle (and other Yankee teammates); the others’ sleeves are noticeably longer…as well as in “61”; Billy Crystal didn’t miss much.

Mantle, btw, also should have been on my list. The guy just looked great in a baseball uni.

—Ricko

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 9:34 pm |

[quote comment=”393230″][quote comment=”393221″]Here’s one of those big but comments:

I love Terry Proctor and his contributions to this site. BUT…
I do not think MLB needs to form a uni police. The NFL has shown how ineffective that is. Yeah, some guys play along, but how many others still look like slobs and willingly…gladly…pay the fines? It’s too late for something like that when dealing with multimillionaire athletes. The only way to lose the baggy look in sports is the wait for the overall culture to change its fashion. It will, it just takes time.[/quote]

What if they were not allowed to play with uni violations. No play no pay.[/quote]

Let’s see them get approval from the Players’ Association on that one. Individual teams might get away with it (and sort of have through the years), but MLB-wide? Not gonna happen.

[quote comment=”393193″]I’m sure it’s been mentioned before, but is the Cervelli helmet the same model as David Wright’s from last year or is it the newer, slimmer, version they’d talked about being developed?[/quote]

Apparently it was the slimmer model. Cervelli’s helmet had the ventilation slits in the top, and it looked pretty nice… despite it making his melon look so large. But Martinez did also mention Wright wearing one last season as well.

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 9:47 pm |

LI Phil said…

“there are lies, damn lies…and statistics”

Darn right, can be twisted all over the place.

Louie gets visitor in the hospital.

Visitor says, “Louie, the guys at The Lodge voted to wish you a speedy recovery.”

“Thanks,” says Louie.

Visitor whispers to nurse as he leaves, “I didn’t tell him it was 53-49.”

—Ricko

Nick|
June 6, 2010 at 9:52 pm |

[quote comment=”393217″]As long as we’re talking about unique colours for alternative jerseys, how would people react to a Vegas Gold Jersey? Pics coming soon.[/quote]

Only if they come in DARK Vegas Gold, not the light watered down Gold that barely is darker than White that is currently wayyyyyyyy too much in vogue.

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 9:56 pm |

[quote comment=”393236″][quote comment=”393217″]As long as we’re talking about unique colours for alternative jerseys, how would people react to a Vegas Gold Jersey? Pics coming soon.[/quote]

Only if they come in DARK Vegas Gold, not the light watered down Gold that barely is darker than White that is currently wayyyyyyyy too much in vogue.[/quote]

That would be “Old Gold,” wouldn’t it, the color so many of us would like the Saints to return to?

[quote comment=”393213″]Change the Washington D.C. football team’s name to the Piscataways (if they must “honor” a race of people driven off their land). Research the tribe’s history, customs and artifacts and redo the logo based on those findings. This change will spark questions and curiosity and little kids will ask what’s it all about and adults will share a part of our nation’s history that too often is neglected.

I love regional or historic elements woven into team names. That is a wonderful, sometimes lost element that is great to include.

However, “Piscataways” would be tough to accept, less for the length and four syllables, and more for the first time the headlines read
“NFL Pissies Lose Third in a Row!”

Nick|
June 6, 2010 at 10:00 pm |

[quote comment=”393237″][quote comment=”393236″][quote comment=”393217″]As long as we’re talking about unique colours for alternative jerseys, how would people react to a Vegas Gold Jersey? Pics coming soon.[/quote]

Only if they come in DARK Vegas Gold, not the light watered down Gold that barely is darker than White that is currently wayyyyyyyy too much in vogue.[/quote]

That would be “Old Gold,” wouldn’t it, the color so many of us would like the Saints to return to?

Correct Amundo!!! (Hope I spelled it right, if not somebody please help!)

Nick|
June 6, 2010 at 10:06 pm |

[quote comment=”393239″][quote comment=”393237″][quote comment=”393236″][quote comment=”393217″]As long as we’re talking about unique colours for alternative jerseys, how would people react to a Vegas Gold Jersey? Pics coming soon.[/quote]

Only if they come in DARK Vegas Gold, not the light watered down Gold that barely is darker than White that is currently wayyyyyyyy too much in vogue.[/quote]

That would be “Old Gold,” wouldn’t it, the color so many of us would like the Saints to return to?

Correct Amundo!!! (Hope I spelled it right, if not somebody please help!)[/quote]

I once saw an even better era Idaho jersey where they pretty much mimmicked the Ohio State striping, using the Silver/Grey and White striping separated by Black, over the Old Gold jersey. Pretty good look.

Always thought that the Saints should have had an Old Gold alternate dark enough to be worn as a dark jersey with WHITE PANTS against White jerseyed opponents. That would have looked wonderful in outdoor day games on those rare occasions that they got to wear dark on the road. (Dallas, Washington, sometimes Atlanta, L.A., etc.)

Gusto44|
June 6, 2010 at 10:15 pm |

[quote comment=”393237″][quote comment=”393236″][quote comment=”393217″]As long as we’re talking about unique colours for alternative jerseys, how would people react to a Vegas Gold Jersey? Pics coming soon.[/quote]

Only if they come in DARK Vegas Gold, not the light watered down Gold that barely is darker than White that is currently wayyyyyyyy too much in vogue.[/quote]

That would be “Old Gold,” wouldn’t it, the color so many of us would like the Saints to return to?

Ugh. So much jackassery over the name “Redskins.” I expected better from the UniWatch crowd.

Ricko|
June 6, 2010 at 10:40 pm |

[quote comment=”393242″]Didn’t Marshall rename the team from the Braves to the Redskins so it was closer to Red Sox, seeing that they were to share Fenway?[/quote]

Sure, it may have been that Redskins had a quirky fit with Fenway as one of the alternatives to Braves and made it seem like the best choice (as opposed to Indians or some such), but logic says the primary reason for the change was to separate from the Boston Braves of baseball’s National League…but still hold onto the Native American imagery.

Point is, Redskins per se wasn’t totally owing to playing in Fenway; it didn’t arise from just that. They already had that sort of nickname, simply…”bent it” for marketing and because of the new playing site. Who knows, had they not already had an Indian “theme” THEY might have been the Boston Patriots (too bad, that name would have played well in Washington, too).

And also because, well, we hardly could have the Boston Braves playing in the home of the Red Sox, could we.

—Ricko

JimV19|
June 6, 2010 at 10:46 pm |

[quote comment=”393230″][quote comment=”393221″]Here’s one of those big but comments:

I love Terry Proctor and his contributions to this site. BUT…
I do not think MLB needs to form a uni police. The NFL has shown how ineffective that is. Yeah, some guys play along, but how many others still look like slobs and willingly…gladly…pay the fines? It’s too late for something like that when dealing with multimillionaire athletes. The only way to lose the baggy look in sports is the wait for the overall culture to change its fashion. It will, it just takes time.[/quote]

What if they were not allowed to play with uni violations. No play no pay.[/quote]

This is where we need to stay in reality, Jim. That rule will work in the minors, but it’s way too late to impose something like that when you’re dealing with a superstar-driven league with a players union full of millionaire athletes. Especially when you have current fashion going against you. Face it, we’re in the minority here. A lot of fans (a.k.a. paying customers) just don’t care about baggy pajama pants as much as we do. The number of people who demand stirrups and “proper” unis are much lower than the alleged nine percent of Native Americans who are offended at the Redskins name. And there isn’t enough furor out there for that to change anytime soon.

Again, there’s what we’d like to see, and what’s likely to happen. Right now those two things aren’t in alignment, but I’m not going to let it ruin my enjoyment of watching sports. I will deal with the reality and try to focus on the things I do like.

the whole “redskin” thing obviously touches a nerve with many people…glad to see thoughtful and constructive commentary on the subject

while i will agree that at one time, the monicker “redskin” may not have been considered a racist or offensive term, i’m not necessarily sure that’s still the case today — that’s not being PC, but pragmatic

whether one considers the helmet (and name) offensive makes for great debate; and while an obvious oversimplification, i can guarantee that the current washington team were called the “yellowskins” and had this for a helmet, or the “blackskins” and had this, there’d have been a name/logo change long ago…yet “redskins” doesn’t seem to muster the same outrage…at least not across the board

good debate today, folks[/quote]

If the face on the Redskins’ helmet looked like Chief Wahoo, I’d be more inclined to agree with you, Phil. But the face looks more like the one on the Blackhawks’ jerseys, and apparently that’s OK. I do agree with your first comment, though. Thank you, Walt.[/quote]

so…because the redskins logo isn’t more offensive, you’re less inclined to think the name is? do i have that correct?[/quote]

No.

I just said the logo isn’t as offensive as the ones you showed in your examples. That’s all.

Again, not a fan of the name.

[quote comment=”393229″][quote comment=”393220″]

[quote comment=”393160″][quote comment=”393159″]Arguing that naming the team Redskins after a Native American coach, in my opinion, further shows the name had racist intent. If the Celtics had changed their name to the Darkies or Coloreds when Bill Russell was their head coach.

Furthermore, to anyone that says the use of “redskin” is not as racially offensive as the “N-word”: Are you Native American? Have you asked any Native American how they feel about this? [/quote]

Native Americans have been asked about this…and this was there response:

Not a fan of the name myself, but if this story is accurate and only nine percent find it offensive, I’m not seeing a huge problem. Try finding any name where you can get 100% approval. I’m not saying the nine percent should just keep quiet and accept it. Keep the discussion going, but until more Native Americans are upset about this, I’m staying out of it.[/quote]

until we poll ALL the native americans, im not buying one survey that portends that “only 9%” find the term “redskins” offensive

i bet i could go out to the shinnecock indian reservation by me, do a poll, and find 50% who say it’s offensive — would that make you feel differently?

put another way — lets say we were in a certain middle european country six or seven decades ago, and the leader of this land said “all (fill in the blank) minorities must (convert/denounce/etc.) said minority’s beliefs or face execution”…the leader then polled the country, and shockingly, 90% supported this position, since they had nothing to gain by opposing it…would that 10%’s opinion be worth dismissing?

extreme case? sure…germane to the discussion…maybe, maybe not

point being…even if that “poll” (or study or whatever it was indicating ‘only’ 10% of native americans were offended by the term “redskins”) was completely legitimate, what difference does the % make? 10% may not be a majority, but it’s NOT AN INSIGNIFICANT minority either; what if it was 20%? 49.9%? and what if a poll were found where 50.1% of the respondants found the term offensive? would you feel differently then, because then you’d have a majority?

would you be the lone holdout on a jury where you felt the accused was innocent? or because you were just a small minority, would you just assume the group spoke for you and say, “oh, they must know better, it’s 11-1 against me”?

you know i love ya jim, so this isn’t necessarily directed at you, but i just HATE when people cite a single poll, take whatever they wish from it and say “there — you see?”

there are lies, damn lies…and statistics[/quote]

I wasn’t saying that stat is the be-all-end-all of stats for this discussion. Nor was I saying the discussion should come to an end. I was just saying, if I’m not a Native American, and allegedly 90 percent of them aren’t offended with the name, who am I to tell them they should? When someone can show me several studies proving the other one wrong, then maybe I’ll be more concerned about it.

And don’t throw in an extreme case to make your point. There’s a difference between an out-and-out case of right and wrong (convert or denounce, or face execution) and whether or not a name is offensive. Offensive is in the ear of the beholder, and not being a Native American, I’m not the beholder. Apples and oranges, buddy.

Gusto44|
June 6, 2010 at 11:17 pm |

[quote comment=”393243″]In early 80’s Vanderbilt also had an Old Gold jersey almost exactly like the one you’re describing. Had a white version, of course, and wore them with black, white or old gold pants.

I think the Vandy QB with the game pants was Whit Taylor, who played with Michigan of the USFL. I vaguely recall Navy wearing an all gold uniform several years ago for one game, think Chris McCoy was the Middies QB. It actually looked better than I expected.

Jiminy Christmas, people, it’s pretty simple: When you steal a continent from someone via a sustained campaign of ethnic cleansing, the least you could do is have the decency not to use their imagery and nomenclature for your sports teams. Anything else is, um, in poor taste.

What’s the word people always use on this site when describing a uniform they like? Oh right: classy. Now try to apply that word to this debate. I think you’ll find it puts things in useful perspective.

I’m really starting to like the SF Giants’ orange-brimmed black hats with the gray roadies. But the orange tops could get put to pasture, and I won’t miss them one bit.
Who’s with me?

JTH|
June 7, 2010 at 12:02 am |

[quote comment=”393253″]Jiminy Christmas, people, it’s pretty simple: When you steal a continent from someone via a sustained campaign of ethnic cleansing, the least you could do is have the decency not to use their imagery and nomenclature for your sports teams. Anything else is, um, in poor taste.

What’s the word people always use on this site when describing a uniform they like? Oh right: classy. Now try to apply that word to this debate. I think you’ll find it puts things in useful perspective.[/quote]
In other words, go Flyers?

JimV19|
June 7, 2010 at 12:49 am |

[quote comment=”393255″][quote comment=”393253″]Jiminy Christmas, people, it’s pretty simple: When you steal a continent from someone via a sustained campaign of ethnic cleansing, the least you could do is have the decency not to use their imagery and nomenclature for your sports teams. Anything else is, um, in poor taste.

What’s the word people always use on this site when describing a uniform they like? Oh right: classy. Now try to apply that word to this debate. I think you’ll find it puts things in useful perspective.[/quote]
In other words, go Flyers?[/quote]

Let’s not go that far, James. Is it ever acceptable to root for them? ;)

Paul, for the most part, I agree. Although I’ve said it several times today, I’ll repeat – I’m not a fan of the Redskins name. Wasn’t a big fan of George Marshall, either.

But, there are other schools, teams, etc. who use similar names to honor Native Americans. Those people weren’t the ones responsible for displacing or eliminating the Natives. Why should they be judged as being as guilty as the ones who did the displacing and eliminating?

I just don’t think it’s that simple to say we can never use any Native American names or terms. If done properly, they can be great teaching opportunities, especially if a team uses the name of a tribe that formerly lived in that area.

Now there are other names that aren’t, as you say, classy. Hello, Cleveland? If you’re going to honor those who first graced our shores, how about calling your team something that’s geographically correct? Nothing like hanging onto a name that reminds us, “Oh yeah, Columbus thought he was in India, but instead of correcting him we honor his mistake?”

On the other hand, if you’re going to get rid of the Fighting Sioux you have to get rid of the Fighting Irish. The second one could be construed as worse, since the mascot is a caricature.

Instead of throwing all these names out the window, let’s instead continue to discuss them. Then, hopefully, people will get a better understanding of which ones should stay and which ones deserve to be thrown out.

And again, not a fan of the Redskins name. Hail to the Federals, or the Potomacs, or something else.

[quote comment=”393256″]Those people weren’t the ones responsible for displacing or eliminating the Natives. Why should they be judged as being as guilty as the ones who did the displacing and eliminating?[/quote]

It’s not about guilt; it’s about doing the right thing. Jim, it’s true that you and I never did any displacing and eliminating. But we have BENEFITTED from it. And that means we have a responsibility not to exploit a situation, or make it worse, or even take it for granted.

Similarly, my ancestors never owned slaves — indeed, my ancestors didn’t even come to America until well after slavery was abolished. But as white Europeans, they BENEFITTED from institutional racism. I in turn have benefitted. And that means I have a responsibility on that front as well.

The idea of white people — who literally stole this continent from another race — using Native American imagery for *any* commercial purpose is frankly obscene.

JimV19|
June 7, 2010 at 1:17 am |

[quote comment=”393258″][quote comment=”393256″]Those people weren’t the ones responsible for displacing or eliminating the Natives. Why should they be judged as being as guilty as the ones who did the displacing and eliminating?[/quote]

It’s not about guilt; it’s about doing the right thing. Jim, it’s true that you and I never did any displacing and eliminating. But we have BENEFITTED from it. And that means we have a responsibility not to exploit a situation, or make it worse, or even take it for granted.

Similarly, my ancestors never owned slaves — indeed, my ancestors didn’t even come to America until well after slavery was abolished. But as white Europeans, they BENEFITTED from institutional racism. I in turn have benefitted. And that means I have a responsibility on that front as well.

The idea of white people — who literally stole this continent from another race — using Native American imagery for *any* commercial purpose is frankly obscene.[/quote]

I can understand that, but I think you can honor a race and still make a profit. Better yet, you can honor a race by sharing the profits with them.

That thought just came to me, but my original thought was, it may be the right thing to keep a Native American name in the public eye as a way of increasing its awareness. Again, as long as it’s done with dignity.

Anyway, I’m not against you. I think we have the same goal, just with different ideas for approaching it. We do have a responsibility to do the right thing.

[quote comment=”393243″]In early 80’s Vanderbilt also had an Old Gold jersey almost exactly like the one you’re describing. Had a white version, of course, and wore them with black, white or old gold pants.

I was off-line for a while, but thanks for the Vandy & Idaho photos, Ricko. It’s a shame that there are not enough sites to go back and reference these different eras of NCAA unis.

Though you guys are probably off-line this late, I still thought I’d coment on the Vandy Old Gold jerseys. I loved the 1970s Vandy Dark Old Gold jerseys and the use of it with Black and White, but that era of Vandy’s uni was weird from the get-go, as it was garrishly over-detailed.

The helmet was Black with a White facemask, the Old Gold jersey had White numerals, and the pants were almost always Black. in total the uni just looked a bit weird and off-kilter, particularly when the omitted TV numerals and instead used the Star/”V” logo in place of TV numerals, but kept the five-stripe-on-the-sleeve (1970s Saints/Browns
/Packers) template, along with the fact that they were cut very short even for that era’s short mid-drift style, and it all added up to a bit too different, even for the time.

Mase|
June 7, 2010 at 11:54 am |

Yes, I am biased toward Sweetness, but I always thought he looked pretty good in his uniform…

Those Olympic football jerseys from the other day are great! There’s only 1 thing missing: A helmet logo for the American team. Canada & Russia get one, but the helmet on the good ol’ US of A is blank?!?!! I’m presuming that this was a minor oversight and was not intentionally done. Since you forgot one, I’ve got 2 suggestions. 1) Old Glory (classic, simple) or 2) The bald eagle. I’m a Steelers fan, but the Eagles wings would fit right in with that fantastic Uni set. Really great work on the rest of those unis!!

Joe Raskin|
June 8, 2010 at 12:25 am |

The most beautiful sight ever in a baseball uniform was Willie Mays. No one else comes close.